|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 22:40:53 GMT
Okay, the option is out there: follow your lead (you have no medical expertise whatsoever), or follow the lead of the medical professionals. I would never advise someone to have their genitals amputated; but I'm not so stupid as to think I know better than the professionals, or to prefer your advice over that of the medical profession. Even if the medical professionals are wrong on this, it would still have been more reasonable to listen to them than you. There is no long term data on this, so tell me Darling, have the number of suicide rates increased or decreased amongst trans people in the past 20 years? You refer to expert medical advice, what studies are you referring to? If you're interested to know just how much professional medical input goes into the process, take a look at this for a concise overview: www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/As to suicide rates among transgender people, there is no shortage of research. It confirms that the suicide rate among transgender people is considerably higher than in the general population. Here is just one example: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/ |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jun 17, 2023 23:35:14 GMT
There is no long term data on this, so tell me Darling, have the number of suicide rates increased or decreased amongst trans people in the past 20 years? You refer to expert medical advice, what studies are you referring to? If you're interested to know just how much professional medical input goes into the process, take a look at this for a concise overview: www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/As to suicide rates among transgender people, there is no shortage of research. It confirms that the suicide rate among transgender people is considerably higher than in the general population. Here is just one example: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/Correct. Suicide rates are far higher amongst transgender people opposed to other groups which is why telling transgender people that genital mutilation is a good thing & will somehow help, is a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 0:03:11 GMT
Correct. Suicide rates are far higher amongst transgender people opposed to other groups which is why telling transgender people that genital mutilation is a good thing & will somehow help, is a bad idea. That's your opinion. It's not a medical opinion. It might be best to leave it to the professionals. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jun 18, 2023 2:03:05 GMT
Correct. Suicide rates are far higher amongst transgender people opposed to other groups which is why telling transgender people that genital mutilation is a good thing & will somehow help, is a bad idea. That's your opinion. It's not a medical opinion. It might be best to leave it to the professionals. Like the ones at Tavistock you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 18, 2023 6:57:21 GMT
Don't you know who he was? Bamber Gascoigne traces a clear path through a complicated history, exploring the motives, the passions, the fears and the achievements of the Christians. I suggest read his book. The "Q" document is the basis upon which the 3 synoptic Gospels are written...Mark is accepted as the first that can be accredited but [German] scholars think that this Gospel came from an earlier document which the call "Q" which there are no copies of - but (cutting a long story short) by analysing the other 3 it is inferred. Mark is generally accepted as being written around the year 70 (so about 40 years after Christ's death) which means that "Q" was earlier....therefore Mr. Gascoigne is merely parroting what is already known.
I don't have that book but I do have a shit load of books on the Roman Empire for the period 200BC up to 600AD including loads on the origins of the various proto-Christianities...of which there were a fuck ton....don't forget that what you have in the Bible is merely the final "Authorised" edition of a cannon of works agreed upon by Rome between 325 and 381.
These are opinion, not facts and you need to ask why Rome were selective in which works they accepted. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 18, 2023 7:15:30 GMT
Correct. Suicide rates are far higher amongst transgender people opposed to other groups which is why telling transgender people that genital mutilation is a good thing & will somehow help, is a bad idea. That's your opinion. It's not a medical opinion. It might be best to leave it to the professionals. We tried that.. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 8:32:57 GMT
That's your opinion. It's not a medical opinion. It might be best to leave it to the professionals. Like the ones at Tavistock you mean? I'm not familiar with Tavistock. A quick read of a Guardian article says that 'inexperienced and inexpensive' psychologists were making clinical errors. It goes without saying that I was referring to competent medical professionals. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 8:34:39 GMT
That's your opinion. It's not a medical opinion. It might be best to leave it to the professionals. We tried that.. What did the court decide in that case? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 8:40:38 GMT
That's your opinion. It's not a medical opinion. It might be best to leave it to the professionals. We tried that.. Your article doesn't say whether the plaintiff was successful. And what if she was successful? What does that prove? If I can find a case where a person with cancer successfully sued a hospital for conducting an improper course of treatment, will that mean that all cancer treatment should stop? When it comes to the treatment of cancer, will it mean that it is no longer reasonable to prefer the medical opinion of cancer specialists over the opinion of the man on the street? |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 18, 2023 9:22:58 GMT
The "Q" document is the basis upon which the 3 synoptic Gospels are written...Mark is accepted as the first that can be accredited but [German] scholars think that this Gospel came from an earlier document which the call "Q" which there are no copies of - but (cutting a long story short) by analysing the other 3 it is inferred. Mark is generally accepted as being written around the year 70 (so about 40 years after Christ's death) which means that "Q" was earlier....therefore Mr. Gascoigne is merely parroting what is already known.
I don't have that book but I do have a shit load of books on the Roman Empire for the period 200BC up to 600AD including loads on the origins of the various proto-Christianities...of which there were a fuck ton....don't forget that what you have in the Bible is merely the final "Authorised" edition of a cannon of works agreed upon by Rome between 325 and 381.
(1) These are opinion, not facts and (2) you need to ask why Rome were selective in which works they accepted. (1) Of course they are....that's what scholars do when they are trying to piece together the past when there is very little to go on. All they have is fragmentary reference material and from that they try and put together a narrative based on what they have and the scholarship (economic / social/ military / political etc) gathered over for that period or action or whatever it is in question. 2000 years ago 99% of people were illiterate and viewed the world differently thus 2000 years later all people can do is try and make sense of the tiny bits of information they have. Don't forget the Bible is not a historical textbook...its' merely a collection of books....a cannon of 27 religious texts.
(2) Politics and power....rifts in the various Christian cults over doctrine; was Jesus a God? If Jesus was God then what was God? How can you have two Gods etc etc. Their were many cults of Christianity in the early empire and beyond - from the Gnostics to Mani a huge gulf of beliefs and between the various cults open aggression was starting to break out...fights within the empire. There was also increasing military pressure from outside the empire therefore there needed to be an "orthodoxy" created so that religion became part of imperial law creating a means to quell internal strife.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 18, 2023 9:39:11 GMT
(1) These are opinion, not facts and (2) you need to ask why Rome were selective in which works they accepted. (1) Of course they are....that's what scholars do when they are trying to piece together the past when there is very little to go on. All they have is fragmentary reference material and from that they try and put together a narrative based on what they have and the scholarship (economic / social/ military / political etc) gathered over for that period or action or whatever it is in question. 2000 years ago 99% of people were illiterate and viewed the world differently thus 2000 years later all people can do is try and make sense of the tiny bits of information they have. Don't forget the Bible is not a historical textbook...its' merely a collection of books....a cannon of 27 religious texts.
(2) Politics and power....rifts in the various Christian cults over doctrine; was Jesus a God? If Jesus was God then what was God? How can you have two Gods etc etc. Their were many cults of Christianity in the early empire and beyond - from the Gnostics to Mani a huge gulf of beliefs and between the various cults open aggression was starting to break out...fights within the empire. There was also increasing military pressure from outside the empire therefore there needed to be an "orthodoxy" created so that religion became part of imperial law creating a means to quell internal strife.
Eh? Many peoples had more than one god, including the Jews prior to the ramblings of Abraham and he never killed them all off immediately. You are correct in describing the Bible as not a historical textbook, most, if not all of it, was written after the described events and with many omissions. |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Jun 18, 2023 10:34:36 GMT
(1) Of course they are....that's what scholars do when they are trying to piece together the past when there is very little to go on. All they have is fragmentary reference material and from that they try and put together a narrative based on what they have and the scholarship (economic / social/ military / political etc) gathered over for that period or action or whatever it is in question. 2000 years ago 99% of people were illiterate and viewed the world differently thus 2000 years later all people can do is try and make sense of the tiny bits of information they have. Don't forget the Bible is not a historical textbook...its' merely a collection of books....a cannon of 27 religious texts.
(2) Politics and power....rifts in the various Christian cults over doctrine; was Jesus a God? If Jesus was God then what was God? How can you have two Gods etc etc. Their were many cults of Christianity in the early empire and beyond - from the Gnostics to Mani a huge gulf of beliefs and between the various cults open aggression was starting to break out...fights within the empire. There was also increasing military pressure from outside the empire therefore there needed to be an "orthodoxy" created so that religion became part of imperial law creating a means to quell internal strife.
(1) Eh? Many peoples had more than one god, including the Jews prior to the ramblings of Abraham and he never killed them all off immediately. You are correct in describing the Bible as not a historical textbook, most, if not all of it, (2) was written after the described events and with many omissions.(1) They did but we're only talking about Christianity here....and up to 325 (for the sake of simplicity) they hadn't made up their minds on how many gods they had or who in fact was God or how to define what their God actually was...ergo the in-fighting. So, based on the shindig at Nicaea (325AD overseen by the Emperor Constantine) they eventually ended up (dis)agreeing that there were three Gods in one God (as it were) they came up with a politically motivated doctrine called homoousios which was designed to settle the question and make everyone friends again....which it didn't!
(2) as we've discussed history is always written after the fact. The issue is that "history" can be carved on stone or handed down by word of mouth or in the form of stories or physical artifacts. Written documents go missing or get destroyed buried eaten by critters and simply lost to time...therefore 1000s of years later we have to make do with what we've got.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jun 18, 2023 10:54:19 GMT
Like the ones at Tavistock you mean? I'm not familiar with Tavistock. A quick read of a Guardian article says that 'inexperienced and inexpensive' psychologists were making clinical errors. It goes without saying that I was referring to competent medical professionals. I suggest you become more familiar with it than merely reading a Guardian article. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 11:10:18 GMT
I'm not familiar with Tavistock. A quick read of a Guardian article says that 'inexperienced and inexpensive' psychologists were making clinical errors. It goes without saying that I was referring to competent medical professionals. I suggest you become more familiar with it than merely reading a Guardian article. Why? Wasn't the issue medical incompetence at the hands of 'inexperienced and inexpensive' psychologists. When someone suggests that you seek medical attention, it's implied that the medical attention should administered by a competent medical professional. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Jun 18, 2023 11:24:42 GMT
I suggest you become more familiar with it than merely reading a Guardian article. Why? Wasn't the issue medical incompetence at the hands of 'inexperienced and inexpensive' psychologists. When someone suggests that you seek medical attention, it's implied that the medical attention should administered by a competent medical professional. Like I said, research it a bit more. There is more to it than so-called incompetence. |
|
